The topic of sexual coercion in ale prisons has received much more
academic attention and debate than consensual homosexual activity in
prison literature (Bowker, 1980; Nacci and Kane 1983; Lockwood, 1980;
Sagarin, 1976; Saum, Surratt, Inclardi and Bennett, 1995; Scacco, 1975;
Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby and Donaldson, 1996; Tewksbury, 1989;
Wooden and Parker, 1982). According to Saum et al. (1995), this may be
due to the nature of the homosexual acts. Saum et al. (1995) also argued
that "consensual sex is seen as less of a threat to inmate or
institutional security than rape and thus does not demand the attention
of more violent behavior" (415). Only four studies have focused on
the amount of consensual homosexual activity in male prisons (Saum,
Surratt, Inciardi and Bennett, 1995; Tewksbury, 1989; Nacci and Kane,
1983; Wooden and Parker, 1982).

In one of the most comprehensive surveys on sex in prison, Wooden
and Parker (1982) found that approximately 65 percent of male inmates in
a medium-security California prison had engaged in consensual homosexual
activity while incarcerated. Unfortunately, Wooden and Parker's
sample was overrepresented by "effeminate homosexuals" and
"vulnerable heterosexual youngsters" (9). In other words, the
California Department of Corrections used this particular prison as a
place to house many of the known homosexuals.

In a study by Nacci and Kane (1983), federal inmates' sexual
behavior was examined. In a random sample of 330 inmates in 17 federal
institutions, they found that 30 percent of males had engaged in some
form of consensual homosexual activity. Tewksbury (1989) found that 19.4
percent of 150 male inmates in an Ohio prison had consensual sexual
contact with other male inmates during the preceding year. Finally, Saum
et al. (1995) found that only 2 percent of 101 inmates in a Delaware
medium-security prison had engaged in male-to-male sexual activity
during the previous year of incarceration.

As one can see, these studies vary in terms of the amount of
homosexual activity in male prisons. This is due in part to
methodological issues that researchers face when conducting studies on
sex in prison. One of the most difficult problems with sex studies is
the reporting. Because of the inmate social code that governs prisons
and often demands masculinity and power, many inmates may underreport the amount of homosexual activity in which they have engaged while
incarcerated because they fear that others may see them as weak (Saum et
al., 1995).

According to Saum et al. (1995), there are problems with the actual
wording of questions that inmates are asked, which may make it difficult
for them to answer. For example, the sexual terminology employed often
is quite different among researchers. Concise and uniform questions that
can assess the number of inmates who engage in consensual homosexual
activity are needed. Thus, the present study was undertaken to explore
the amount of consensual homosexual activity in three Oklahoma male
prisons and to improve some of the methodological issues that face
prison sex researchers. Additionally, this was the first examination of
male consensual homosexual activity in Oklahoma prisons.

Method

From August 1998 to May 1999, qualitative face-to-face interviews
were conducted with 174 male inmates at a minimum- (N = 52), medium- (N
= 61) and a maximum(N = 61) security prison in Oklahoma. A total of 300
inmates (100 inmates from each facility] were randomly selected to
participate in the study. However, due to the sensitive nature of the
study, 126 inmates refused to participate. Therefore, the response rate
was 58 percent.

Inmates who agreed to participate were told that a voluntary,
in-depth interview would be conducted that would take approximately 30
minutes to complete. They were informed that they could experience
emotional discomfort due to the sensitive nature of the research.
Inmates also were told not to provide their names or any identifiers
during the interview in order to maintain confidentiality.

Comparison of the general population of each of the prisons and the
research sample reflected some differences. For example, white inmates
(38.5 percent) were underrepresented in the sample of minimum-security
inmates compared to the general population of the institution (52.4
percent). Native Americans (19.2 percent) also were overrepresented in
the sample of minimum-security inmates compared to the general
population (7.7 percent). White inmates (47.5 percent) were
underrepresented in the sample of medium-security inmates compared to
the general population (53.9 percent). Additionally, white inmates (45.9
percent) were underrepresented in the sample of maximum-security inmates
compared to the general population (55.3 percent). The mean age of the
sample was 39 for minimum-security inmates, 36 for medium-security
inmates and 33 for maximum-security inmates. These are considerably
close to the mean ages of each institution (37, 36 and 33,
respectively). Half the sample had never been married, with only 22.4
percent currently married and slightly more than 27 percent legally
divorced or widowed.

Results

Inmates were asked to characterize their sexual orientation at the
time of the interview. More than 78 percent of the sample identified
themselves as heterosexual. Eight percent characterized themselves as
homosexual and slightly more than 13 percent identified themselves as
bisexual. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the inmates' sexual
orientation for each institution. The maximum-security unit had more
self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals than the other two
institutions.

Inmates also were asked whether they had engaged in any of the
following consensual activities with another male prior to
incarceration: kissed someone of the same sex, rubbed a body part
against someone of the same sex or allowed someone of the same sex to
rub a body part against them in a sexual manner, touched the sex organs
of a male or allowed a male to touch their sex organs, had oral sex
(either giving or receiving) with someone of the same sex, and/or had
anal intercourse (either giving or receiving) with someone of the same
sex.

Nearly 16 percent of the entire sample said they had kissed someone
of the same sex prior to incarceration. More than 16 percent stated that
they had rubbed a body part against a male or allowed a male to rub a
body part against them in a sexual manner prior to incarceration. More
than 17 percent of the inmates had touched the sex organs or allowed
someone of the same sex to touch their sex organs prior to
incarceration. Nearly 18 percent of the sample had either given or
received oral sex from a male prior to incarceration. Finally, 14.4
percent of the inmates had engaged in anal intercourse with someone of
the same sex. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the inmates' sexual
behavior prior to incarceration for each institution. Inmates at the
maximum-security prison were more likely to have engaged in homosexual
behavior prior to incarceration than inmates in the medium- and
minimum-security prisons.

(*) Percentages include respondents who answered yes to the
questions.

If the inmates answered yes to either of the questions pertaining to oral or anal sex, they were asked whether they were active (insertee
in oral sex and/or insertor in anal sex], passive (insertor in oral sex
and/or insertee in anal sex) or versatile (could play both roles) prior
to incarceration. More than 10 percent of the inmates said they had
played the active role with another male prior to incarceration. More
than 4 percent had played the passive role, while nearly 4 percent had
played the versatile role with another male prior to incarceration.

Inmates also were asked whether they had engaged in any of the
following consensual activities with another male during incarceration:
kissed someone of the same sex, rubbed a body part against someone of
the same sex or allowed someone of the same sex to rub a body part
against them in a sexual manner, touched the sex organs of a male or
allowed a male to touch their sex organs, had oral sex (either giving or
receiving) with someone of the same sex, and had anal intercourse
(either giving or receiving) with someone of the same sex.

More than 18 percent of the sample said that they had kissed
someone of the same sex during incarceration. More than 23 percent
stated that they had rubbed a body part against a male or allowed a male
to rub a body part against them in a sexual manner during incarceration.

More than 24 percent of the inmates had touched the sex organs or
allowed someone of the same sex to touch their sex organs while
incarcerated. Nearly 24 percent of the sample had either given or
received oral sex from a male during incarceration. Finally, 20 percent
of the inmates had engaged in anal intercourse with someone of the same
sex while incarcerated. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the
inmates' sexual behavior during incarceration for each institution.
Again, inmates from the maximum-security facility were more likely to
engage in consensual homosexual activity during incarceration than
inmates in the minimum-and medium-security facilities.

(*) Percentages include respondents who answered yes to the
questions.

If the inmates answered yes to either of the questions pertaining
to oral or anal sex, they were asked whether they were active (insertee
in oral sex and/or insertor in anal sex), passive (insertor in oral sex
and/or insertee in anal sex) or versatile (could play both roles) while
incarcerated. More than 13 percent of the inmates said they had played
the active role with another male prior to incarceration. More than 5
percent had played the passive role, while nearly 6 percent had played
the versatile role with another male prior to incarceration.

Finally, the inmates were asked if they had a male sex partner in
prison. More than 18 percent of the sample indicated that they did have
a male sex partner at the time of the interview. Many of these
partnerships had lasted for more than one year (10.2 percent). In
addition, more than 6 percent of the sample indicated that they were in
love with their partner.

Discussion

The present study did not find an elevated rate of consensual
homosexual activity in the inmates compared to the amount in which they
engaged prior to incarceration. One-fourth of the prison sample
indicated that they had engaged in some form of consensual homosexual
activity while incarcerated. However, when you examine the number of
inmates who had engaged in homosexual activity prior to incarceration
(18 percent), there is not much difference. Thus, it appears that
inmates who engage in homosexual activity prior to incarceration also
engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated.

Consensual homosexual activity in prison is not as high as other
studies have found. This could be due in part to the sensitive nature of
the interview, which may have resulted in underreporting by the inmate
sample. It also could be due in part to the assumption that inmates are
not as sexually active as previously thought. For example, since more
than 90 percent of the sample indicated that they feared HIV/AIDS, it
can be assumed the disease is possibly deterring inmates from having sex
while incarcerated. In addition, although randomly selected in three
Oklahoma prisons with different security levels, the N's are only a
representative sample of those three prisons and are too small to
generalize to the overall population of Oklahoma inmates.

Research on consensual sex in prison does provide correctional
administrators and staff with more knowledge of their institutions. All
forms of consensual sex is illegal and forbidden in prison. According to
Saum, Surratt, Inciardi and Bennett (1995), sex is forbidden "so
that correctional officers can fulfill their objective of a safe and
secure environment" (414). Correctional administrators and staff
must be aware of the amount of consensual sex occurring in their
institutions so they may provide additional safety and security measures to their inmate populations as well as society. Tewksbury and West
(2000) stated, "It should be of institutional concern to understand
sexual expression among inmates who are safe and discreet, and to
control unsafe and unwanted sexual expression among inmates who use sex
as a weapon" (375).

In conclusion, given what we do know about prison sexuality,
researchers must persist in recommending policy changes within prisons.
For example, although consensual homosexual activity is a violation of
rules and regulations within correctional facilities, administrators
must wake up to the grim reality that inmates contract sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, while incarcerated. Currently,
only five prison systems allow condoms: Mississippi, New York City, San
Francisco, Vermont and Washington, D.C. (Hammett, Harmon and Maruschak,
1999). Thus, we all must continue to strive for safety and security in
our correctional facilities.